THANK YOU FOR YOUR ORDER
Thank you for your recent purchase. If you need further assistance, please contact Customer Service at
[email protected]. Please include the Request ID, so we can better assist you.
Delivered by
CUSTOMER INFORMATION ORDER INFORMATION
DOCUMENT INFORMATION
Request ID:
Ordered For:
Ordered For Email:
Ordered:
Ordered For:
Company:
Address:
Country:
Phone:
Fax:
Email:
Publication:
Vol(Iss) Pg:
Title:
Genre:
Urgency:
Copies:
Type:
Usage:
Date
Std. Num.:
Publisher:
This is not an invoice.
Deliver Via:
Delivery Address:
Tracking Info.:
Author(s):
Client ID:
(800) 422-4633 Toll Free
(203) 423-2175 Direct Email: [email protected]
Total Fee:
Copyright Terms:
You have not secured permission through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. for any other purpose but may have other rights pursuant to
other arrangements you may have with the copyright owner or an authorized licensing body. To the extent that a publisher or other
appropriate rights-holder has placed additional terms and conditions on your use of this document, such terms and conditions are
specified herein under “Copyright Terms”. If you need to secure additional permission with respect to this content, please
purchase the appropriate permission via RightFind.
The contents of the attached document are copyrighted works. You have secured permission to use this document for the following
purpose:
CHAPTER 4
Internal Social Media and Internal
Communication
Vibeke Thøis Madsen
Introduction
Internal social media (ISM) offers a communication platform inside the
organization where organizational members can share knowledge, viewpoints and connect with each other across departments, hierarchical levels,
and geographical distances. ISM comes in many varieties: it can be an
integrated part of the intranet, also known as a social intranet; a separate
communication tool such as Yammer, Slack, or Microsoft Teams; or take
the form of a closed group on social network services such as LinkedIn
or Facebook. The social tools could include social networking sites, wikis,
discussion forums, blogs, and instant messaging. Leonardi et al. (2013)
define enterprise social media in broad terms as:
V. T. Madsen (B)
DMJX, Danish School of Media and Journalism, Aarhus, Denmark
e-mail: [email protected]
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2021
L. R. Men and A. Tkalac Verˇ ciˇ c (eds.), Current Trends and Issues
in Internal Communication, New Perspectives in Organizational
Communication, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78213-9_4
57
58 V. T. MADSEN
web-based platforms that allow workers to (1) communicate messages with
specific co-workers or broadcast messages to everyone in the organization;
(2) explicitly indicate or implicitly reveal particular co-workers as communication partners; (3) post, edit, and sort text and files linked to themselves
or others; and (4) view the messages, connections, text, and files communicated, posted, edited and sorted by anyone else in the organization at
any time of their choosing. (p. 2)
From a communication perspective it is more interesting to explore
what type of communication develops on a platform, and how it evolves,
than to explore the technical constitution of the platform itself. In other
words, technology becomes interesting only in regard to how it influences
communication. ISM exists to enable horizontal and vertical communication across different organizational sectors, making visible people,
communication, and interactions to all organizational members (Treem
et al., 2020). Madsen (2017) therefore defined ISM as “an user-friendly
and visible web-based communication arena inside an organization in
which employees and managers can communicate, interact, connect, and
make sense of their work and organizational life” (p. 3). This chapter will
first present the benefits of using ISM in internal communications, then
review challenges involved. It will be argued that ISM can develop into
three different types of communication arenas. Three sections will then
explore different communication dynamics on ISM, explain the prerequisites for creating open and transparent communication, and illustrate how
emerging technologies can interact with ISM. Finally, future research and
managerial implications are discussed.
Benefits of Using ISM
ISM enable symmetrical communication (Grunig, 2009) and employee
participation (Cardon & Marshall, 2015; Falkheimer & Heide, 2014;
Heide, 2015). These two goals have long been hailed as an ideal toward
which organizations should strive (Grunig & Hunt, 1984; Heron, 1942;
Redding, 1972). Treem and Leonardi (2012) even argue that ISM will
have profound consequences that will alter “socialization, information
sharing and power processes in organizations” (p. 143). Employees are
very knowledgeable about their work, and when organizations draw
on their knowledge it should make for better decisions and practices,
creating a more effective organization (Redding, 1972). Theoretically,
4 INTERNAL SOCIAL MEDIA AND INTERNAL COMMUNICATION 59
ISM can therefore be a transformative media in the internal communication strategy (Men et al., 2020) which will empower employees
to become active communicators instead of passive receivers (Madsen,
2016).
Several researchers have pointed out the array of benefits that would
result from introducing ISM into organizations, such as visible communication strengthening existing connections; the development of new
horizontal and vertical connections; the increase in social capital among
employees as competencies become more visible (Fulk & Yuan, 2013;
Laitinen & Sivunen, 2020); the creation of enhanced knowledgesharing capability (Vuori & Okkonen, 2012); and the improvement and
acceptance of decisions (Madsen, 2016; Madsen & Johansen, 2019).
Communication on ISM could furthermore be a key to create a sense of
community (Laitinen & Sivunen, 2020; Uysal, 2016), which would help
employees to display organizational citizen behavior (Madsen & Verhoeven, 2016). Other benefits include enhancing workplace productivity
(Leftheriotis & Giannakos, 2014), improving ideation and innovation
(Gode et al., 2019), and providing better customer service (Men &
Bowen, 2016; Ruck, 2015) as employees can share thoughts and ideas
about how to improve services, point out short-comings in existing offers
and solve sudden and unexpected problems.
When organizational issues are discussed in the ISM communication
arena, managers get a useful sense of the pulse of the organization.
Managers at all levels can listen to the employees and understand how
they make sense of internal communication. Managers can also engage in
conversations with employees about organizational issues, which provides
feedback about products, services, and work processes that can be richer
than face-to-face discussions because they involve more participants. A
CEO who communicates with employees will come across as more
personal and amiable (Ewing et al., 2019), and when managers react,
answer and provide additional explanations, the employees feel that they
are heard and listened to (Madsen, 2016; Men et al., 2020). When organizational members discuss organizational issues on ISM, they are actually
re-negotiating rules, norms, and organizational identity (Madsen, 2016;
Uysal, 2016). This communication enhances organizational transparency
and help employees identify with the organization (Madsen, 2018, 2020;
Men et al., 2020). Participatory communication on ISM can thus involve
and empower employees (Madsen, 2018; Men et al., 2020). There is a
60 V. T. MADSEN
strong link between internal communication and engagement that especially seems to go through communication that involves, activates, and
empowers employees (Men et al., 2020), which is precisely the promise
of ISM (Men et al., 2020).
Challenges with Introducing ISM
Despite the benefits of using ISM in internal communication, several
studies have found that organizations are far from unlocking the full
potential of ISM (Madsen, 2017; Men & Hung-Baesecke, 2015; Ruck,
2015; Sievert & Scholz, 2017). Introducing ISM does not automatically introduce participatory communication. Many factors influence how
employee communication on ISM will develop in an organization (see
Fig. 4.1). The variability of the ISM organizational experience shows that,
there are better and worse practices. The perception and the use of ISM
differ not only from one organization to another, but, from one employee
to another. The following sections will explore these factors.
The organizational context will influence the degree and quality of
employee communication on ISM. The organization must be prepared
to embrace participatory communication (Parry & Solidoro, 2013).
Fig. 4.1 Different factors influencing employee communication on ISM
(slightly altered from Madsen [2017], with the permission of Journal of
Communication Management)
4 INTERNAL SOCIAL MEDIA AND INTERNAL COMMUNICATION 61
Post-bureaucratic organizations with a flat structure and a tradition of
involving employees in decision-making are therefore more likely to
develop employee communication on ISM than a more hierarchical organization. A central issue is the conflict between the organization’s need
to control organizational communication and the nature of communication on social media as open and uncontrollable (Macnamara & Zerfass,
2012). Organizations may thus choose a “closed” or an “open” approach
to ISM (Baptista & Galliers, 2012). In the closed approach the organization control the editorial content, and therefore restrict the range of
commenting employees are allowed; in contrast, the open approach allows
open debate and comments. These two options correspond to the success
of the ISM as a communication arena. In the open case, communication is perceived as welcome, and thus enables a greater use and depth of
employee communication, while in the closed case, employees will feel less
welcome to communicate and will consequently avoid the ISM forum for
any but pro forma communications (Baptista & Galliers, 2012; Pekkala,
2020). The open case is supported by several studies that have shown how
important it is that managers listen to employee voices on ISM (Chin
et al., 2015; Trimi & Galanxhi, 2014). Managerial receptiveness is not
a matter of managers explicitly claiming to be receptive. It is rather a
matter of managers conducting communicative practices such as actively
engaging with employees on a regular basis and reacting to employee
voice with respect, and for example provide additional explanations for
managerial directives (Ellmer & Reichel, 2020). Furthermore, the organizational culture has to encourage employees to share their knowledge
and opinions. A survey of 500 organizations in Germany found that organizational culture, especially the lack of trust, was a major impediment to
integrating ISM (Sievert & Scholz, 2017). Huang et al. (2013) compared
the use of ISM in three different organizations and found that ISM did
not become multivocal in the organization that encouraged a competitive
culture, while in the two others, which were more open, ISM did become
multivocal as employees regardless of their role and position in the hierarchy trusted that they were welcome to participate. Employees are thus
not only concerned about retaliation from managers but also comments
and reactions from other coworkers (Madsen & Verhoeven, 2016). In
this respect, as studies in employee voice have found the perceived safety
and perceived efficacy of voice determines whether employees will voice
their opinion in an organizational context (Morrison, 2014). Thus, the
organizational context, style of leadership, management philosophy and
62 V. T. MADSEN
managerial practices play a huge role in shaping the ISM experience,
as norms and power struggles tend to move into the communication
arena. If communication is contaminated with distrust and power struggles before ISM, these factors could even be enhanced by ISM (Denyer
et al., 2011).
The process of introducing ISM often makes a difference as to whether
communication on ISM become multivocal. ISM tends to fail when:
• the purpose of ISM is unclear (Denyer et al., 2011; Laitinen &
Sivunen, 2020; Madsen, 2017; Manuti, 2016; Trimi & Galanxhi,
2014);
• ISM lacks support from (top) managers (Chin et al., 2015; Trimi &
Galanxhi, 2014); or
• employees interpret and understand the social technology in a
different way than anticipated (Högberg & Olsson, 2019; Madsen,
2017; Rice et al., 2017).
Broadly speaking the introduction of ISM can be treated as either a
functionalistic technology project or as a change management project
(Madsen, 2017). When it is treated as a technology project, employees
tend to be unsure of what the new media should be used for, especially if there are other alternatives as emails, newsletters, meetings, and
conversations with colleagues around the coffee machine. Successful ISM
launches undertake it as a change management process, where employees
get a clear picture of how and why ISM is being introduced and what is
expected of them (Denyer et al., 2011). In other words, it is important
to get employees on board (Madsen, 2017). In this process, communication professionals can play an important role as change agents, helping
employees and managers make sense of the new media, provide training
and help facilitate communication on ISM (Madsen, 2017).
The ISM technology provides a communication arena that make multivocal and participatory communication possible (Baptista & Galliers,
2012; Madsen, 2018). Especially the visibility of the communication
makes it different from other types of organizational communication
(Treem et al., 2020). Welch (2012) argue that organizations need to
take media affect into account, and when an organization introduces
ISM, employees will expect dialogue and interaction that they know
from external social media, although they might also be concerned that
4 INTERNAL SOCIAL MEDIA AND INTERNAL COMMUNICATION 63
the communication will be social and not work-related (Madsen, 2017).
Scholars distinguish between lean and rich media where rich media
include face-to-face communication, meetings, and lean media involve
company magazines, electronic newsletters, bulletin boards, and intranet.
Employees prefer rich media to lean media (Verˇ ciˇ c & Špoljari´ c, 2020).
One advantage of ISM is that it straddles the divide between lean and
rich media. On one hand it consists of written text, which is characteristic of lean media, while on the other hand the writing is informal and
conversational, and pictures of employees appear next to their post, which
integrate elements from rich media (Ewing et al., 2019).
Where employees have many different information and communication channels, ISM must be positively presented as a different type of
communication arena (Ellmer & Reichel, 2020), since employees may
otherwise experience it as task overload (Cardon & Marshall, 2015; Chin
et al., 2015; van Zoonen & Sivunen, 2020). In other words, employees’
initial interpretation and sensemaking of ISM is crucial to how communication on ISM will develop (Ellmer & Reichel, 2020; Högberg & Olsson,
2019). Madsen (2017) found that many different organizational factors
influence how employees interpret and understand communication on
ISM (see Fig. 4.1). Apart from the overriding degree of openness in the
organizational context, it mattered how communication among organizational members on ISM developed. If the communication appeared
to be fruitful, interesting and valuable, it would in general be rated
positively. However, if it appeared to be a “waste of time”, this, too,
would have prolonged effects (Madsen, 2017). In other words, employees
communicating in the ISM arena can inspire other employees to do the
same.
Three Types of Communication Arenas on ISM
Many different factors influence how communication on ISM develop.
Madsen (2018) proposes three different types of communication arenas
on ISM: a quiet arena, a knowledge-sharing arena and a participatory
communication arena (see Fig. 4.2).
In the quiet arena, departments mainly use ISM as a one-way communication channel to inform employees. The latter may comment or like
a post, but dialogue or threads are not encouraged. In the knowledgesharing arena, employees share knowledge about customers, products and
tasks horizontally across the organization. Finally, in the participatory
64 V. T. MADSEN
Fig. 4.2 Three types of communication arenas created by ISM (Madsen
[2018], with the permission of Corporate Communication: An international
Journal)
communication arena, organizational members share knowledge across
the organization, and they discuss organizational identity and strategy
with colleagues and managers. Thus, a horizontal, vertical and multivocal space is carved out for different voices and opinions. Participatory
communication on ISM only seems to arise when employees perceive
that they have a license to criticize organizational procedures and strategies without fearing comments and consequences from colleagues and
managers. Participatory ISM is usually connected to a previously nourished culture of manager receptiveness. Madsen (2018) argues for the
importance of the participatory communication arena, since it is here that
ISM is different from other communication channels—and it is here that
ISM has the potential to radically change internal communication.
Dynamics of Employee Communication on ISM
Employee communication on ISM is different from communication on
external social media since employees have a contractual and psychological
relationship with the organization (Frandsen & Johansen, 2011) which
4 INTERNAL SOCIAL MEDIA AND INTERNAL COMMUNICATION 65
motivates and restrains their communication on ISM. Although empirical research on actual communication on ISM is still in its infancy, the
following sketches out some of the dynamics that influence communication on ISM.
Madsen and Verhoeven (2016) found that employees were worried
about providing low quality posts and comments, harming personal
reputation, and violating unwritten rules, as well as receiving negative
comments and reactions from other coworkers and managers. These risks
made them consider their post carefully and apply seven self-censorship
strategies: (a), postponing publishing content; (b), framing content in
a constructive manner; (c), imagining responses from organizational
members; (d), asking managers or colleagues for a second opinion; (e),
using another channel; and (f), withdrawing or only writing positive
comments. Self-censorship was a deliberate and ultimately prosocial tactic
that helped create more valuable communication on ISM for other organizational members. It became a social media skill that developed over
time. Some scholars argue that social media policies are necessary to
guide employees about what to use the platform for (Ewing et al., 2019),
while others argue that the norms of the organization tend to move onto
the platform anyway (Uysal, 2016) and that explicit policies might just
discourage employees from posting and commenting.
Employees can use ISM to raise issues and gain support from other
organizational members, and it can develop into a spiral of voice as more
organizational members comment or like the post (Madsen & Johansen,
2019). Due to the visibility of employee communication, the managers
or staff who are responsible for the relevant issue have to react or risk
the trap of double criticism as it has been defined in crisis communication
(Frandsen & Johansen, 2017): the substantial issue raised by the original criticism provokes a second criticism, which is directed toward how
the first criticism was (not) handled. Organizations often fear these spirals
of voice, but Madsen and Johansen (2019) argue that if critical issues
raised on ISM are explained and dealt with in a constructive manner in
the ISM arena, it will contribute to creating a more open communication
culture and lead to a more robust organization. When employees discuss,
challenge and negotiate organizational issues on ISM, they construct
organizational identity and acquire a deeper insight into organizational
issues and decisions (Madsen, 2016). Madsen (2016) argues that this
experience could make employees better prepared to face criticism from
outsiders and act as organizational ambassadors.
66 V. T. MADSEN
Employee communication on ISM in open organizations connects
frontline employees with top managers. This can make middle managers
feel threatened and redundant (Koch et al., 2012), which on the one
hand, flattens the hierarchy, and on the other hand, can lead to middle
manager discontent. It makes it harder for middle managers or specialists
to ignore issues of importance to employees (Madsen, 2020). Madsen
(2021) found that communicative leadership on ISM was enacted not
only by managers but also by knowledgeable individual organizational
members, as well as being co-constructed by groups of employees. In
this respect, employees can find solutions to problems and organizational issues without the mediation of managers. This strongly implies
that easing the rules on ISM communication for and welcoming nonhierarchical cooperation works, creating quicker, better thought out
feedback and decisions-making, with a considerable advantage to the
organization in successfully engaging employees.
Prerequisites for Creating Open
and Transparent Communication on ISM
As pointed out, the best strategic use of ISM in the organization
springs from an open mindset among managers at different levels in
the organization, most especially among top managers, and it depends
on management’s willingness to expose itself to criticism and feedback
(Madsen, 2018; Madsen & Johansen, 2019). An open culture takes time
to nourish: Employees have to learn how to feel free to speak their mind
without aggressiveness or self-protective gestures, and managers have to
learn not to confuse criticism with disobedience or ill-will. A first step is to
appreciate that employees have competences and situated knowledge not
necessarily possessed by management, and that making it safe and efficient
to speak up is a net gain. Employees tend to remember how their viewpoints have been received in the past, which influences whether they will
speak up again (Garner, 2013). If discussions or comments are ignored,
employees will quickly stop posting.
When a situation with employee dissent on ISM is treated constructively, other employees will notice how it has benefitted the organization
as well as the dissenter. This is likely to develop into an organizational story that creates incentives for employees to voice their opinions
(Madsen, 2020).
4 INTERNAL SOCIAL MEDIA AND INTERNAL COMMUNICATION 67
Emerging Technologies
in Internal Communication
ISM competes with other technologies populating the internal communication, such as machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI), which
are increasingly used to optimize and automate work processes and
knowledge-sharing. Machine learning is a computational method that
classifies phenomena and identifies underlying patterns through statistical
analyses on large data-sets (Provost & Fawcett, 2013). Artificial intelligence is based on what a computer have learned about the users of
different digital tools. Machine learning can give managers and communication departments insights into how employees use different digital
tools and communication channels. Using these tools in combination
with ISM can uncover the interest and relevance of different types of
content, which can help shape digital services such as chat-bots that can
answer questions from employees or personalize the intranet frontpage so
that it fits the needs of the individual employee. Machine translation is
used in multinational organizations to automatically translate documents
and news into the users’ language, which can facilitate interactions on
ISM between employees of different nationalities. Furthermore, machine
learning can help identify and find employees with certain skills based on
their communication and interaction of ISM.
Virtual reality is also becoming a tool for training employees and
helping them acquire certain skills, and this will no doubt have massive
effect on internal communication. However, as the technostructure is
new, little research has been done on the use of these technologies in
internal communication and how they can be used in relation to ISM.
Surely future research will emerge in parallel with the proliferation of
these tools and platforms, which will explore their real-time use, how
employees interact with and perceive of them, as well as assess their
benefits and negatives in relation to internal communication.
Future Research and Implications
ISM is on track to become a major component of the internal communication mix, and as such it comes heralded by employee expectation
that it will make for more authentic and transparent internal communication. Some organization have even begun to use external social media as
their internal communication channel, blurring the lines between internal
68 V. T. MADSEN
and external communication in an attempt to make the organization
seem more transparent to their customers or with citizens in general. In
this respect, ISM requires managers to rethink organizational communication, bringing to the fore fundamental issues about transparency,
open communications, privacy, decision-making hierarchies, and feedback. Future research will have to explore the positives and negatives—as
well as the unexpected consequences—of increasing transparency on ISM
and external social media, whether it influences managerial practices,
whether it makes internal communication clearer and more democratic,
and whether it produces greater employee engagement.
Two Practitioner’s Perspectives
Mini-Case
The Catfish Discussion: Listening to the Employees
Jyske Bank is the third-largest bank in Denmark with approximately
3500 full-time employees divided between 98 different locations. Their
internal social media is integrated with the intranet, hosting a discussion
forum called “The Word is Free”. All the employees can start, comment
on, or like a discussion. The bank uses a catfish as an organizational
symbol, a symbol of the bank’s difference between itself and other banks,
which became the topic of a memorable exchange between employees
concerning the Bank’s organizational identity.
The discussion started with a long and well-formulated post entitled:
“Is the Catfish dead?”. A bank adviser argued that, though the bank
promoted itself as a different kind of bank from its competitors, it was
hard to see any substance to this claim. He explained at length, and with
several examples, that the bank was not delivering a different experience
to its customers. The post received 43 comments and 900 likes. The first
eight comments supported the bank adviser. Some just wrote “agree”
or “agree—well written”, while a lower-middle manager from a different
branch supported the spirit in the post and commented: “I hope it is not
an impossible fight”. Then, a top manager entered the scene and wrote:
Good and well-formulated post [name of initiator of the post]. This
deserves a serious comment also here from the board of directors. ‘We
are working on the case’ it says when you press a link here on the intranet.
Actually, we are working on many initiatives and considerations in relation
to your post, but the question is which one of them we will pursue. To
4 INTERNAL SOCIAL MEDIA AND INTERNAL COMMUNICATION 69
find the answer to that is I guess called the ‘strategy process’ according to
theory books. Management will return to the question in the near future,
but until then, it would be nice to hear the opinions and viewpoints from
the readers.
This encouraging comment sparked 30 comments that supported the
initial post and added more examples of frustrations, problems, and
suggestions for improvement. Then, another senior manager commented
that while he did not agree with everything in the initial post, he appreciated that the bank adviser wanted to act as a spokesperson on behalf of
his coworkers. The post was then praised for being valuable and an inspiration to management: “I believe that your post is exactly what the CEO
has hoped for and will cherish”. This was followed by the comments of
three more employees and a comment from one of the journalists from
the communication department, who announced that the next issue of
the monthly internal TV-program would be completely dedicated to the
issue. The discussion turned into an organizational story known as “the
catfish-discussion”.
Professional Interview
Creating an Internal Culture Where Debate Is Welcome
In 2013 Jyske Bank launched a social intranet with news, debate and
videos called JB United. Lasse Høgfeldt, Head of Communications,
reflected in an interview on what it takes to develop participatory
communication on ISM.
We call it our internal culture of debate, and it is a cornerstone of our
internal communication. We are an organization scattered around almost
100 different locations and we have about 3500 employees, and if we
want to be a value-based organization then we need an open democratic
debate.
Historically it started when our present CEO was elected by the board.
He felt that it was really difficult to know what was happening in the
organization. He therefore initiated a culture of debate and a bottomup culture where we can bring issues we have to the CEO. Employees
can comment on JB United, and we as a communication department are
expected to critically focus on things that do not function well. It is the
CEO’s choice to do something about it or leave it alone. But he can never
say that he did not know. We also have top down communication where
70 V. T. MADSEN
we “make our CEO shine”. That is the other part of our job, but it is
still in the context of our culture of debate. When we make a TV-spot
with the board of directors or the CEO, it is always meant to serve as a
starting point for a debate.
We have worked in this culture of debate for more than 20 years.
Management and especially top management must appreciate that
employees bring topics, stories, facts and emotions up to the surface so
that we have to deal with them. On a regular basis the CEO responds
to posts from employees even if he does not agree with them, and that
it extremely important. As an employee you really risk something when
you utter an opinion, which is why, as a communication department, our
job is to do everything we can to support the employees so that they
do not feel alone in their criticism. In our internal TV-department we
will follow up on the story and find more perspectives to present it, challenging the managers to answer. We turn it into a journalistic story. We
might also interview the person that initiated a post to recognize his or
her courage and demonstrate to the organization that it is appreciated.
Our journalistic approach is however always constructive. We cover many
different perspectives to find solutions, not to blame someone. Our task
is to create a good working environment.
Our model is that we have taken the talk that takes place around the
coffee machine, across the lunch table or over a beer on a Friday afternoon and now the talk is shared across the organization on JB United
(our ISM) as a democratic deliberating process. It gives employees a good
sense of what is going on in the organization and they feel that they are
able to influence things when they have ideas.
References
Baptista, J., & Galliers, R. D. (2012). Social media as a driver for new rhetorical practices in organisations. In 45th Hawaii International Conference on
System Science, IEEE Computer Society (pp. 3540–3549). https://doi.org/
10.1109/HICSS.2012.537.
Cardon, P. W., & Marshall, B. (2015). The hype and reality of social media
use for work collaboration and team communication. International Journal
of Business Communication, 52(3), 273–293. https://doi.org/10.1177/232
9488414525446.
Chin, C. P. Y., Evans, N., Choo, R. K. K., & Tan, F. B. (2015). What influences employees to use enterprise social networks? A socio-technical perspective. In
PACIS 2015 Proceedings (p. 54).
4 INTERNAL SOCIAL MEDIA AND INTERNAL COMMUNICATION 71
Denyer, D., Parry, E., & Flowers, P. (2011). “Social”, “Open” and “Participative”? Exploring personal experiences and organisational effects of enterprise2.0 use. Long Range Planning, 44(5), 375–396. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.lrp.2011.09.007.
Ellmer, M., & Reichel, A. (2020). Mind the channel! An affordance perspective on how digital voice channels encourage or discourage employee
voice. Human Resource Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/
1748-8583.12297.
Ewing, M., Men, L. R., & O’Neil, J. (2019). Using social media to engage
employees: Insights from internal communication managers. International
Journal of Strategic Communication, 13(2), 110–132. https://doi.org/10.
1080/1553118X.2019.1575830.
Falkheimer, J., & Heide, M. (2014). Strategic communication in participatory
culture. In D. Holtzhausen & A. Zerfass (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of
strategic communication (pp. 337–349). Routledge.
Frandsen, F., & Johansen, W. (2011). The study of internal crisis communication:
Towards an integrative framework. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 16(4), 347–361. https://doi.org/10.1108/135632811111
86977.
Frandsen, F., & Johansen, W. (2017). Organizational crisis communication: A
multivocal approach. Sage.
Fulk, J., & Yuan, Y. C. (2013). Location, motivation, and social capitalization via
enterprise social networking. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,
19 (1), 20–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12033.
Garner, J. T. (2013). Dissenters, managers, and coworkers: The process of coconstructing organizational dissent and dissent effectiveness. Management
Communication Quarterly, 27 (3), 373–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/089
3318913488946.
Gode, H. E., Johansen, W., & Thomsen, C. (2019). Employee engagement
in generating ideas on internal social media. Corporate Communications: An
International Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-03-2019-0024.
Grunig, J. E. (2009). Paradigms of global public relations in an age of
digitalisation. Prism, 6(2), 1–19.
Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. T. (1984). Managing public relation’s. Holt.
Heide, M. (2015). Social intranets and internal communication. In W. T.
Coombs, J. Falkheimer, M. Heide, & P. Young (Eds.), Strategic communication, social media and democracy: The challenge of the digital naturals
(pp. 45–53). Routledge.
Heron, A. R. (1942). Sharing information with employee’s. Stanford University
Press.
72 V. T. MADSEN
Huang, J., Baptista, J., & Galliers, R. D. (2013). Reconceptualizing rhetorical
practices in organizations: The impact of social media on internal communications. Information & Management, 50 (2), 112–124. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.im.2012.11.003.
Högberg, K., & Olsson, A. K. (2019). Framing organizational social media: A
longitudinal study of a hotel chain. Information Technology & Tourism, 21(2),
209–236.
Koch, H., Gonzalez, E., & Leidner, D. (2012). Bridging the work/social divide:
The emotional response to organizational social networking sites. European
Journal of Information Systems, 21(6), 699–717.
Laitinen, K., & Sivunen, A. (2020). Enablers of and constraints on employees’ information sharing on enterprise social media. Information Technology
& People. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-04-2019-0186.
Leftheriotis, I., & Giannakos, M. N. (2014). Using social media for work: Losing
your time or improving your work? Computers in Human Behavior, 31(2),
134–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.016.
Leonardi, P. M., Huysman, M., & Steinfield, C. (2013). Enterprise social media:
Definition, history, and prospects for the study of social technologies in organizations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19 , 1–19. https://
doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12029.
Macnamara, J., & Zerfass, A. (2012). Social media communication in organizations: The challenges of balancing openness, strategy, and management.
International Journal of Strategic Communication, 6(4), 287–308. https://
doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2012.711402.
Madsen, V. T. (2016). Constructing organizational identity on internal social
media: A case study of coworker communication in Jyske Bank. International Journal of Business Communication, 53(2), 200–223. https://doi.org/
10.1177/2329488415627272.
Madsen, V. T. (2017). The challenges of introducing internal social media—The
coordinators’ roles and perceptions. Journal of Communication Management,
21(1), 2–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-04-2016-0027.
Madsen, V. T. (2018). Participatory communication on internal social media—
A dream or reality? Findings from two exploratory studies of coworkers as
communicators. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 23(4),
614–628. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-04-2018-0039.
Madsen, V. T. (2020). Crossing hierarchies in organizations: Making sense of
employee dissent and circumvention on internal social media. Globe: A Journal
of Language, Culture and Communication, 9 , 57–72.
Madsen, V. T. (2021). Communicative leadership on internal social media: A way
to employee engagement? In Advances in public relations and communication
management (pp. 93–114). Emerald Group Publishing.
4 INTERNAL SOCIAL MEDIA AND INTERNAL COMMUNICATION 73
Madsen, V. T., & Johansen, W. (2019). A spiral of voice? When employees speak
up on internal social media. Journal of Communication Management, 23(4),
331–347. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-03-2019-0050.
Madsen, V. T., & Verhoeven, J. W. (2016). Self-censorship on internal social
media: A case study of coworker communication behavior in a Danish bank.
International Journal of Strategic Communication, 10 (5), 387–409. https://
doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2016.1220010.
Manuti, A. (2016). Communicating the “social” organization: Social media and
organizational communication. In The social organization: Managing human
capital through social media (pp. 14–27). Palgrave Macmillan.
Men, L. R., & Hung-Baesecke, C. J. F. (2015). Engaging employees in China:
The impact of communication channels, organizational transparency, and
authenticity. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 20 (4),
448–467. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-11-2014-0079.
Men, R. L., & Bowen, S. A. (2016). Excellence in internal communication
management. New York, NY: Business Expert Press.
Men, L. R., O’Neil, J., & Ewing, M. (2020). Examining the effects of internal
social media usage on employee engagement. Public Relations Review, 46(2).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2020.101880.
Morrison, E. W. (2014). Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 173–197. https://doi.
org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091328.
Parry, E., & Solidoro, A. (2013). Social media as a mechanism for engagement? In T. Bondarouk & M. R. Olivas-Lujan (Eds.), Social media in human
resources management (Vol. 12, pp. 121–141). Emerald Group Publishing.
Pekkala, K. (2020). Managing the communicative organization: A qualitative
analysis of knowledge-intensive companies. Corporate Communications: An
International Journal, 25(3), 551–571. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-02-
2020-0040.
Provost, F., & Fawcett, T. (2013). Data science for business: What you need to
know about data mining and data-analytic thinking. O’Reilly Media.
Redding, W. C. (1972). Communication within the organization: An interpretive
review of theory and research. Industrial Communication Council.
Rice, R. E., Evans, S. K., Pearce, K. E., Sivunen, A., Vitak, J., & Treem, J. W.
(2017). Organizational media affordances: Operationalization and associations
with media use. Journal of Communication, 67 (1), 106–130. https://doi.
org/10.1111/jcom.12273.
Ruck, M. K. (Ed.). (2015). Exploring internal communication: Towards informed
employee voice. Gower Publishing.
Sievert, H., & Scholz, C. (2017). Engaging employees in (at least partly) disengaged companies. Results of an interview survey within about 500 German
corporations on the growing importance of digital engagement via internal
74 V. T. MADSEN
social media. Public Relations Review, 43(5), 894–903. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.pubrev.2017.06.001.
Treem, J. W., & Leonardi, P. M. (2012). Social media use in organizations:
Exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association.
In Communication yearbook (Vol. 36, pp. 143–189). Routledge.
Treem, J. W., Leonardi, P. M., & van den Hooff, B. (2020). Computer-mediated
communication in the age of communication visibility. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 25(1), 44–59. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/
zmz024.
Trimi, S., & Galanxhi, H. (2014). The impact of enterprise 2.0 in organizations.
Service Business, 8 (3), 405–424.
Uysal, N. (2016). Social collaboration in intranets the impact of social exchange
and group norms on internal communication. International Journal of
Business Communication, 53(2), 181–199.
van Zoonen, W., & Sivunen, A. (2020). Knowledge brokering in an era of
communication visibility. International Journal of Business Communication.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488420937348.
Verˇ ciˇ c, A. T., & Špoljari´ c, A. (2020). Managing internal communication: How
the choice of channels affects internal communication satisfaction. Public
Relations Review, 46(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2020.101926.
Vuori, V., & Okkonen, J. (2012). Knowledge sharing motivational factors
of using an intra-organizational social media platform. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(4), 592–603. https://doi.org/10.1108/136732712
11246167.
Welch, M. (2012). Appropriateness and acceptability: Employee perspectives of
internal communication. Public Relations Review, 38 (2), 246–254. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.12.017.